The High Court has refused an application by C.A. for release from immigration detention, finding that his detention pending deportation was lawful.
Mr Justice David Keane ruled on 3 February 2017 that there was a settled intention to deport C.A. He said the application he had made to be treated as a permitted family member of a Union citizen did not, by itself, give him permission to remain in Ireland while the application was being considered.
C.A. was detained at Cloverhill Prison on 9 January 2017 under a warrant issued pursuant to the Immigration Act 1999. He brought an inquiry under Article 40 of the Constitution, arguing that his pending application prevented the State from forming a definite and concluded intention to deport him. The court admitted him to bail on 17 January, on terms agreed by the parties and approved by the court. He remained on bail subject to conditions, including attending court when required.
C.A.’s application for permitted family member status was made under the European Communities (Free Movement of Persons) Regulations 2015. The judge found no provision in those regulations granting a person permission to reside in Ireland while awaiting a decision on an application to be treated as a permitted family member. He distinguished an earlier case, B.F.O. v Governor of Dóchas Centre, where the State had accepted that the applicant could not be deported until her residency application was decided.
The judge also considered F.I. v Governor of Cloverhill, which concerned a different legal issue involving a repeat asylum application and an EU directive. He found no comparable legal issue in C.A.’s case and no evidential gap about the State’s continuing intention to deport him.
The judgment recounted that C.A. had applied for refugee status in 2010, was refused, and was made subject to a deportation order in 2011. His 2016 permitted-family-member application identified a UK passport holder and claimed a durable relationship. The court did not decide the merits of that application. It excluded from consideration evidence about the alleged relationship and the Minister’s proposed refusal, noting that the allegations had not yet been answered and that the proposed decision postdated the detention.
The court refused the Article 40 application for release. It did not decide a separate argument by the State that habeas corpus was not an appropriate remedy where the detention order showed no invalidity on its face.